[Captain Tom Coughlin]

I don't misunderstand anything, and I'm certainly no sheep. DS9 had a much darker tone years before 9/11. Your premise is flawed.

[horatio]

It is not my premise, Trek is a progressive and not a reactionary sci-fi franchise. Of course right-wingers cannot stand this but that is their problem, not mine.
"It is only good when it is dark" is most of the times just a euphemism for "I want the protagonists to not be bound by ethical rules". In other words, a plead for a transgressive carnival. When VOY was dark we encountered the very opposite, Janeway ruthlessly enforcing Starfleet ethics when she deals with Ransom. And of course the most brilliant episode of VOY was a very bright one which illustrated the benefits of cooperation when the mini-Federation was creates in this space bubble thingy.

The show wasn't bad just because they didn't deal longer with the Maquis issue. That's a critique from a position of expectation, not an evaluation of actual episodes. It is in no way guaranteed that the show would have been better with more focus on the Maquis, it could have very well been worse if it had gone down the pseudo-drama road.

[samwiseb]

Not everything is about 9/11.

(And you can even capitalize and punctuate each word in that sentence when quoting me. You have my permission.)

[horatio]

I will hardly quote such an embarrassing intellectual failure. The pieces of art I wrote about, BSG and ST09, definitely are.

[samwiseb]

....

[kevin]

Originally Posted by Captain Tom Coughlin

I don't misunderstand anything, and I'm certainly no sheep. DS9 had a much darker tone years before 9/11. Your premise is flawed.

Quite correct, 'darker' toned Trek predated that event (as we all know) by several years but that isn't even the issue in regards to VOY.

The premise was to take a group and strand them in the middle of nowhere cut off from everything. While trying to maintain their principles along the way. The show never fully capitalised on that premise (which wouldn't even have meant staying dark necessarily week in week anyway) in favour of keeping it simpler most of the time. Personally I think it was a mere attempt to give Trek a TOS 'out there' flavour again and not because that sort of dramatic exploration was on their minds. It was a gimmick to make it seem different to prior series. But still, it's not, I believe, unfair to say it was not willing to explore the situation the ship was in to it's fullest.

Instead we got Tom Paris accused of murder and a small dog providing the key clue to the real killer! If that's the route they wanted to take fine. But it made it a bland cookie cutter series.

Regarding Stargate.........I missed the boat on that franchise WAAAY back and now it's this large collection of material I would need to go back to day 1 on probably.

[Captain Tom Coughlin]

Originally Posted by kevin

Quite correct, 'darker' toned Trek predated that event (as we all know) by several years but that isn't even the issue in regards to VOY.

The premise was to take a group and strand them in the middle of nowhere cut off from everything. While trying to maintain their principles along the way. The show never fully capitalised on that premise (which wouldn't even have meant staying dark necessarily week in week anyway) in favour of keeping it simpler most of the time. Personally I think it was a mere attempt to give Trek a TOS 'out there' flavour again and not because that sort of dramatic exploration was on their minds. It was a gimmick to make it seem different to prior series. But still, it's not, I believe, unfair to say it was not willing to explore the situation the ship was in to it's fullest.

Instead we got Tom Paris accused of murder and a small dog providing the key clue to the real killer! If that's the route they wanted to take fine. But it made it a bland cookie cutter series.

Regarding Stargate.........I missed the boat on that franchise WAAAY back and now it's this large collection of material I would need to go back to day 1 on probably.

I agree completely. They wanted to put them literally "where no one has gone before" without really exploring the idea of what happens to people that have been stranded like that.

[Captain Tom Coughlin]

Originally Posted by horatio

It is not my premise, Trek is a progressive and not a reactionary sci-fi franchise. Of course right-wingers cannot stand this but that is their problem, not mine.
"It is only good when it is dark" is most of the times just a euphemism for "I want the protagonists to not be bound by ethical rules". In other words, a plead for a transgressive carnival. When VOY was dark we encountered the very opposite, Janeway ruthlessly enforcing Starfleet ethics when she deals with Ransom. And of course the most brilliant episode of VOY was a very bright one which illustrated the benefits of cooperation when the mini-Federation was creates in this space bubble thingy.

The show wasn't bad just because they didn't deal longer with the Maquis issue. That's a critique from a position of expectation, not an evaluation of actual episodes. It is in no way guaranteed that the show would have been better with more focus on the Maquis, it could have very well been worse if it had gone down the pseudo-drama road.

If the show was really meant to be about Starfleet ethics, they wouldn't have been stranded in the first place. They would have used the Caretaker array to go back home. Interfering in the Ocampa's situation is a clear violation of Federation law and principle. She actively chose a side in a situation she had no business involving herself as a representative of the Federation. That's your Starfleet ethics for ya.

[horatio]

This was not a PD case, Janeway was literally thrown into the middle of the situation and had two options, to get her crew home or rescue the Ocampa from slaughter or enslavement. I do not have to point out that the well-being of the Ocampa is more important than the mere lack of comfort of being far away from home, that life and liberty matter more than having to endure an odyssey.
And yes, such a selfless act is radically ethical (which is precisely why so many Trekkers have an issue with it). She could have easily had a mutiny on her hands because of this decision.

[Saquist]

Originally Posted by Roysten

I enjoyed it personally. I agree that certain aspects of it were contrived and plot holes and convenient fixes occurred more often then I would have liked but it is darker, the character interactions are a highpoint of the series IMO, it feels like a real group of people. Often there's a sense of urgency and hopelessness that you rarely got in the other series and the tone and general atmosphere are spot on IMO.

As people are pointing out it's not perfect though, some of the episodes seem a bit devoid of a real point and it certainly lacks the fun of the other shows. Another way of putting it would be It isn't your fathers Stargate!

Worth the watch Omega, enjoy!

Most of the time in the First Season of SGU I was struggling to figure out why we were watching so many self biographies through those dumb kino's and the stones were just over used...I was truly bored.